Previous Page

4.7 OPTIMAL POWER FLOW (OPF) BASED ON DC LOAD FLOW

103

Figure 4.9. Additionally, generation injections 4,

P4, and PI have also been
included as choice variables even though there are no generators at these nodes.
Constraints requiring generation injections at these nodes to be zero account for
the fact that there are no generators at these nodes. The need for this artifice is to
permit the sensitivity report to calculate the shadow prices associated with these
constraints enabling the display of LMP. However, this artifice is not necessary for
the solution of the problem.
A copy of the spreadsheet OPF-DC flow-Line 1imits.Xls is shown in
Figure 4.11. The network topology is inserted into the figure for ready reference.
As in Appendix B.3.1, branch flows in Figure 4.11 have been computed from the
shift factor matrix. The shift matrix S F taken from Appendix B.3.1 is copied into
cells B20:132. The vector of net injection into the network (generation minus load)
is represented in cells J20:J27, which is a transposed replica of row 16. The product
of S,T and Pi,j gives branch flows in cells M20:M32 of Figure 4.11.
It is required to keep the flows in branches below some limit. Since the flow
between two nodes can change direction, there may be different limits for the flows
in two directions. In this example we assume the flow limit to be the same in both
directions (it need not be so). Consequently, the constraint equation for branch flow
Fb will have the formulation -limit 5 Fb 5 limit. These limits are incorporated
into constraints of the Solver. To be sure that it is not constraining, a very high
limit of 10 has been chosen for all branches except branch 3 4 , for which a limit
OPFof 0.5 is chosen.
Sensitivities associated with the study of Figure 4.1 1 are shown in Figure 4.12. DC-flow
linelimNote that the line flow constraint associated with branch 3 4 is binding indicated its,
by a nonzero shadow price of -59.154. The production cost has increased from
a previous value of $295.00 to $305.19. This is because generators had to be
redispatched, backing down cheaper generators and dispatching more expensive
generation to accommodate transmission limitations (congestion). In this instance,
Generators #3 and #6 ($22 and $35) are backed off (not at full output) while
generator #5 of $40 is at full output.
The cell numbers in the sensitivity sheet refer to the main spreadsheet
(Figure 4.1 1). LMP at nodes with generators in Figure 4.12 is shown in cells at the
right-hand top comer by subtracting reduced costs from bid values at that node.
Because of congestion in transmission, there is a spread in the LMP at nodes.
For instance, the LMP at node 3 is $22 while the LMP at node 5 is $48.545. The
marginal cost of supplying energy at nodes 2, 4, and 7 that do not have generators
(cells N14:N16 of Figure 4.1 1) is indicated in Figure 4.12 as $40.498. Unlike nodes
that have generators connected to them, the calculation of LMP at nodes only with
As shown in Section B.3.1, only the imaginary component of the branch admittances have been
included, thus making the network loss-less.
Such flow limitations may arise from thermal considerations (over heating of transmission conductors), or from considerations of inability to maintain voltage levels, system stability, and a myriad of
other reasons. In all cases, such limitations are finally translated to flow limits in appropriate branches, or
across interfaces between subregions. This flow limit, except under dire circumstances, is not exceeded
while operating the system.

-.
0
P

Figure 4.11. Dispatch solution to minimize cost with transmission constraints.

4.7 OPTIMAL POWER FLOW (OPF) BASED ON DC LOAD FLOW

105

Figure 4.12. Sensitivity analysis of transmission constraints.

loads is straightforward; it is the reduced cost associated with choice variables in

cells N14:N16. In this instance, all reduced costs are equal to the shadow price
related to the constraint of total demand in cell N17 of Figure 4.1 1 (see the first
line under constraints in Figure 4.12). A word of caution is that in the presence
of ohmic losses in the transmission system, the LMP at all nodes will not be
equal. Therefore, the difference between shadow prices of nodes arises because of
transmission constraints and ohmic losses, if any. This statement is the same as
that of saying that, in a loss-less system, with no transmission flow constraints, the
LMP at all nodes are the same.
The sensitivity report of Figure 4.12 is related to the optimization in Figure 4.1 1.
The shadow price for cell M26 of Figure 4.11 is $-59.15. Therefore, if the constraint of 0.5 for the flow on branch 3 4 is relaxed (increased), the objective
function will decrease by $59.15. This is called the marginal cost associated with
the transmission constraint.

106

4 SOLVED LINEAR PROGRAM PROBLEMS

Additional Transmission Constraints Effect on Solution. In the example

above, only one branch is shown to be limiting and, therefore, exhibits a nonzero
shadow price. The reader is encouraged to input lower flow limits for several other
branches simultaneously and study the results. It is important to make several such
studies in order to fully comprehend and retain ideas about LMP, and the effects
of congestion.
In real power systems, it is often the case that a certain interface is a limiting
constraint rather that a single branch or a line. An interface is the sum of flows
on some lines connecting one subarea to another. Such constraints are easy to
accommodate into the Solver program. For example, if the sum of flows on branches
3-6, and 3-2 should not exceed a certain value, the constraint can be expressed
as: F3-6 F3-2 5 the desired limit. Correspondingly, an additional entry into the
Solver routine would be the constraint that the value of cell M27 minus1* M23 in
Figure 4.1 1 is less than or equal to some chosen limit.
In exercise problem 2 of Section 4.13, the reader is asked to simulate a situation
where the flow in a tie line is related to the flow in another according to some
relation.

4.8 INTER-REGIONAL DISPATCH

Formulation and Discussion of Problem: A matter of considerable interest in the

electric power industry is that of adequacy of transmission. Within the temtory of a
system operator (such as California, New York, or the PJM interconnection), there
are regions or subregions of generation connected to other regions by transmission
network. Certain regions may have cheaper generation, which cannot supply the
need in another region because of inadequate transfer capability from that region
to the other region. That is not to say that transmission capability between such
subregions should be increased automatically, because such decisions are based
on the economics of cost and benefit. For example, only for a few hours of the
year, the demand and supply situation may represent bottling up of cheaper
generation in some subregions. Such situations may not warrant the improvement
of transmission.
In the deregulated electric industry, the issue of transmission adequacy between
subregions takes on an added dimension because of bidding strategy and the
exercise of market power by Generators. Because of the bidding volatilities for
energy as affected by transmission limitation, the system operator may not be able
to dispatch all of cheaper generation, thus creating a difference in the LMP between
I n t e r - subregions. One would like a model to study and analyze such situations.
region
The spreadsheet of Inter-region.Xls simulates five subregions A, B, C, D,
Xls
and E connected by a transmission system with the indicated shift factor matrix.
Equation (B.24) in Section B.3 of Appendix B shows the process of obtaining the

*Although the interface Row is the sum of Rows in lines, a negative sign is used here because the
convention is positive for Row in the direction 2 to 3.

4.8 INTER-REGIONAL DISPATCH

I07

shift factor matrix. A printout of the spreadsheet "Inter-region.Xls" is shown in

Figure 4.13.
The network between regions is identical to that of the earlier problem in
Figure 4.7 of Section 4.5. In this example, however, it is assumed that the subregions A to E can be further represented by a detailed transmission network without
any constraining flow limitations within the subregions themselves. Within each
subregion, there can be several generators who submit offer bids for the supply
of energy. In our example, we have considered three generators in each subregion
whose offers are shown in cells F5:F19. Each subregion also has loads whose
demands are indicated in cells C7:C19.
The generators have a claimed capability shown as the upper limit in column E.
They also have a lower limit of output, either because of the characteristics of the
network such as voltage limits, or because of the generator characteristics. These
limits are in column D. Given these data, the objective of the system operator is to
minimize the cost of dispatch, which is the sum of products of outputs and offer
bids-this is in cell H20. The decision variables are the generator outputs and,
correspondingly, how much to import or export from one subregion to another,
subject to the limitations of the transmission system. Consequently, choice variables
are the desired outputs of generators (cells G5:G19) and the desired imports to and
exports from subregions in cells C24:G28.I3 By taking the appropriate row sums
and column sums, the export from and import into subregions are computed in row
30, and column I. From these sums, the net injection to the subregional network
is calculated in cells M24:M28. Since the system is loss-less, the generation in
a subregion, plus imports, minus exports must be equal to the demand of the
subregion. This formula is put into cells J7, J10, 513, J16, and J19 and is presented
as an equality constraint to the Solver.
The only remaining constraints, in addition to the nonnegativity conditions, are
those relating to transfer capabilities between subregions. These are indicated in
rows 32 to 37 in columns I, K, and L for all the six branches of the network. The
flow limits need not necessarily be the same for flows in either direction of a branch.
In addition, two interface limits have also been included. Interface limits are those
that specify a limit the sum of flows between certain regions or subregions. In this
example, the limit in cell N33 requires import into subregion E not to exceed 100.
The constraint in cell N36 requires the export from subregion C not to exceed 160.

Mathematical Formulation: Given the costs of generations Cy and quantities

offered Q': from the ith generator in regions r = 1 , . . . , R from i = 1 , . . . , n,
'?
generators in each region r, do the following:
Choose QL8, quantities to be generated from generators i = 1, . . . , i, in regions
r = 1, . . . , R, and let 1', E' be the quantities to be imported into and exported
from regions r , r = 1,. . . , R, in order to minimize

r=l i = l

'3Evidently, diagonal entries in cells C24, D25, and so on, are zero.

Figure 4.13. Inter-regional dispatch.

4.8

INTER-REGIONAL DISPATCH

109

subject to

where D, is the demand of region r and I,, E, indicate the import and export into
regions r,
Q:g(min) I
Qrg IQrg(max),

i = 1,. . . ,n,,

r = 1,. . . , R ,

in which (max) and (min) indicate the maximum and minimum output capabilities
of generators, and the regional transfer limits
Irj

I
Imax

r = 1, .. . , R ,

rj,

Erj IEmax rj, r = 1 , . . . , R

and j = 1, ... , R ( j # r),

and j = 1,. . . , R ( j # r),

where Zmax ,j and Emax ,j are the maximum permitted imports to and exports
from regions r = 1, R, and the limits
Q;gIQTo,

r = l , ...,R ,

i=l,

...,n,,

in which the subscript 0 represents offered quantity.

We also have

j=1
R, j#r

E , = ~ E , ~ ,r = l , ...,R ,
j=1

Solution: The solution obtained by the Solver in Figure 4.13 shows the minimum
cost of dispatch to be $6894.18. Only some constraints are binding. For example,
the upper limit of the third generator in subregion B and the second generator in
subregion E are binding; also, the lower limit of the first generator in subregion A
is binding.
The reader will gain further knowledge from an exercise of changing the limits
for generation and transmission flows, and by examining the associated sensitivity reports. In the following, the sensitivity report associated with Figure 4.13
illustrates the type of information that can be obtained therefrom. In fact, such information is used to price energy in subregions. Results of sensitivity are essential for
the settlement of markets of the deregulated electrical system.

110

4.8.1

Sensitivity Report

SOLVED LINEAR PROGRAM PROBLEMS

Figure 4.14 shows the sensitivity report. This report refers to cells in the study of
Figure 4.13. The reader should examine and ponder the reduced costs associated
with choice variables and shadow prices of constraints.
The most expensive generator feeding energy has a cost of $13.50 in region A,
despite some cheaper generators not being at their full outputs in other regions.
This is because the lower limit of output from that generator is a binding constraint.
In terms of shadow prices, the constraint regarding export from subregions C
and E are binding. Consequently, cheaper generators are backed off in C and E.
Therefore, the cost of supplying an additional unit of energy in subregion E is $8
(since the output of the $8.00 machine is only 30.105, well below its maximum
capability). This is shown in cell J19. Similarly, the cost of supplying the next
increment of energy in subregion C is $10. This is shown in cell J13. Continuing
the same logic, it can be confirmed that the shadow prices associated with cells 57
to J19 are the costs of supplying the next unit of energy in the subregions. Hence,
they represent the LMP of the subregions. The shadow price associated with cells
N33 and N36 indicate the penalty associated with the transfer limit constraint. For
example, the shadow price of $3.002 associated with cell N33 indicates that if the
constraint value for flow across this interface is increased by one (to -lOl), the
objective will decrease by $3.0024.
The penalties associated with shadow prices have to be examined for several
hours of system dispatch in order to ascertain the benefit that would accrue with
any transfer capacity upgrades. The cost of such upgrades, of course, has to be
juxtaposed with the benefits.

4.9 EXAMPLES OF TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS

The following two examples typify problems under the category of transportation
problems.

4.9.1

Warehouse Distribution Problem

Given three warehouses 1, 2, and 3, and three destinations 4, 5, and 6, for the
given costs of transportation between them, find the optimal transportation policy
from warehouse to destination. The quantities available at warehouses, as well as
quantities needed at destinations, are given as indicated in the spreadsheet TransTranspor- portation.Xls.
tationA printout of the spreadsheet and its solution is shown in Figure 4.15. The quanXls
tities needed in destinations are shown in row 17 as 10, 20, and 15. The quantity
available at the three warehouses is indicated in column I as 5, 17, and 23. The costs
of transportation from each warehouse to destinations are indicated in rows 5,9, and
13. Choice variables are the quantities transported from the warehouses to destinations shown in rows 4,8, and 12. The objective of transportation cost is in cell F16.

4
4
4

Figure 4.14. Sensitivity analysis of inter-regional dispatch.

112

4 SOLVED LINEAR PROGRAM PROBLEMS

Figure 4.15. Solution to transportation problem.

Mathematical Formulation of the Problem: Choose cij, i = 1, . . . , n ; j =

1 , . . . , m , the quantities to be moved from n warehouses to m destinations in
order to minimize

where t i j is the cost of transportation from i to j , and the quantities moved from
n warehouses to j destinations should be such that
n

Ccij= e j ,

j = 1 ,... , m ,

i=l

where

Qj

is the demand at destination j , and

m
...

j = 1,... , m ,

C c i j = Qi,
j=1

where Qi is the quantity available at warehouse i , and, of course,

n

i=l

j=1

and
cij

2 0.

4.9

EXAMPLES OF TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS

113

Solution: The final solution using the Solver is shown in the figure under discussion.
4.9.2 Integrating Natural Gas Transportation
and Electricity Generation
We now extend the above problem to include a case of fuel supply (natural gas)
and electricity generation. Even this extension is somewhat simplistic. In real
world situations, optimal fuel procurement by electricity generating companies is
a complex task. One enters into longer-term contracts with take or pay clause,
and one also deals in Options, Futures, and Spot marketsI4 for fuel procurement.
Furthermore, a diversification in sources of supply as well as in types of fuel to
avoid risks of shortage is common practice. Understandably, it is not possible to
simulate all the complications of fuel procurement in an example of a textbook.
Nevertheless, our intent here is to demonstrate how different types of optimization
problems can be integrated to simulate practical situations.
Toward that end, in this example consider three sources of natural gas connected
by a pipeline transportation network to three generating units owned by a Generator.
The spreadsheet Gas-Electric-Transportation.Xls is shown in Figure 4.16. Let Gas the heat content of the gas from the three wellheads be the same. However, the heat
transporrates of generators are different; GI generates 1 MWh per MBTU, G2 produces tation.xls
0.95 MWh per MBTU, and G3 produces 1.05 MWh per MBTU. The data shown
in row 3 incorporate these heat rates.

Discussion of Problem: The cost of transporting gas from the three wellheads to
the three generators are in rows 7, 15, and 23 in units of $/MBTU. The quantity that
can be delivered per hour (MBTU) is dependent on pipeline capacity as indicated in
rows 6, 14 and 22. The total amount of gas (in MBTU) that can be delivered from
each wellhead (per hour) is shown in column I. This represents pipeline capacity.
In terms of pollution arising from electricity generation, each generating unit
has different types of burners. Further there are differences in the composition of
natural gas from the three wellheads. Consequently, different rates of pollution
(thousand lbs per MBTU) are indicated for the generators in rows 10, 19, and 27,
respectively.
In this simple problem, we assume that there is no demand charge for gas delivery,
and that the cost of gas per MBTU, apart from the transportation charges, is the same
from three wellheads. The problem now is to determine the optimum deliveries in
I4Take or pay clauses are written into the fuel delivery contract, obligating the buyer to buy a certain
minimum quantity. Failure to buy the minimum quantity would still entail a certain payment or penalty.
Options and futures are more complicated. The buyer in a secondary market, or in a commodity
exchange, buys a paper contract assuring the delivery of a commodity at some future date at a certain fixed price. The commodity is seldom delivered, but the papers are traded and used as hedging
instruments to insulate the holder from price fluctuations.
The field of hedging is vast, and organizations employ professionals to hedge risks. An excellent source
of reference on these matters is Hull (1999).

114

4 SOLVED LINEAR PROGRAM PROBLEMS

Figure 4.16. Optimization of natural gas delivery through transportation network to electric
generators.

order to a) minimize the transportation charge, b) minimize the pollution given that
the owner of generating units is obligated to deliver 450 M W into the grid.

Mathematical Statement of Problem: Choose gas flows

1, 2 , 3 from wellheads 1, 2, and 3 in order to minimize
3

f i i , f2i, f3i

for i =

4.10 SOLUTION OF PRIMAL-DUAL PROBLEMS

I15

subject to

+ fj2 + f j 3 = 450,

C
3
j=l

0.95

1.05

i=l
3

i=l

and
fji

2 0,

j = 1,2,3;

i = 1,2,3,

where fji is the gas flow from wellhead j to generator i, and tji is the transportation
cost associated with this flow.
For the case of minimizing pollution, (4.1) has to be replaced with a corresponding objective taking into account the pollution rates at generators for different fuels
as depicted in Figure 4.16.

Solution: The solution to the problem of minimizing transportation cost using the
Excel Solver is shown in Figure 4.16 to be $1233.81. The resultant pollution with
this strategy of gas purchase is 292.07 x lo3 lb. Similarly, the reader will find that
the optimum solution to minimize pollution (choose cell H33 to be minimized)
results in a total pollution of 242.5714 x lo3 lb. Correspondingly, the cost of gas
transportation increases. The cost of gas transportation is a degenerate solution as
explained in Section 3.4. This cost can vary from a cost of $2984.28 to $3018.92.
The reader is expected to examine sensitivity sheets resulting from these programs and ponder the reasons for the resulting shadow prices and reduced costs.
4.10 SOLUTION OF PRIMAL-DUAL PROBLEMS
In the example problems of Section 3.10.1, for simplicity, only less than or equal
type of inequalities were considered in the primal problem. However, Table 3.1
outlined rules to formulate the dual problem for all types of inequalities and equality
constraints. In the following examples, we formulate and solve the dual when the
primal problem includes greater than and less than type of inequalities, as well as
equality constraints. We study sensitivity reports of these two solutions and make
observations that correspond to the duality theorems of Section 3.10.2.

116

SOLVED LINEAR PROGRAM PROBLEMS

Consider the following primal problem:

Choose X I ,x2, x3 to minimize
n = 82x1

+ 100x2 + 200x3,

(4.2)

subject to
(4.3)
(4.4)
(4.5)
(4.6)
and

and
x3,

unspecijied.

The corresponding dual of this problem in view of the relations expressed in

Table 3.1 is obtained as follows.
Since the primal has three choice variables, there will be three constraint equations in the dual. There are four constraint equations for the objective of (4.2).
Therefore, there will be four choice variables y1 . . y4 in the dual. Using the righthand terms of (4.3) to (4.6), we obtain the objective function to be maximized
as
= 120yl + 13y2+ 200y3

j-~

ly4

(4.7)

The relationships shown in Table 3.1 stipulate constraints for the dual problem
as follows. In the primal, since X I , x2 1 0, two less than or equal to constraints
equations result. The coefficients of choice variables y of the dual are the transpose
of the first two columns of (4.3) to (4.6) giving

and
~ Y +4y2
I

+ loy4

(4.9)

In above constraint equations, the right-hand-side values are the first two coefficients of the primal objective.

4.10 SOLUTION OF PRIMAL-DUAL PROBLEMS

I17

Since x3 is unspecified in the primal, an equality constraint is obtained using

the third column of equations (4.3) to (4.6) as
6Y2 - 4Y3

+ 4y4 = 200.

(4. IO)

Since the first two constraints in the primal are less than or equal to and since
the third constraint is greater than or equal to, we get
Y1,

y2, 5 0;

y3

20.

(4.1 1)

Since the fourth constraint in the primal is an equality, y4 is unspecified.

Solved
The reader should examine Table 3.1 carefully and correlate the relations defined
Dual . X l s
therein to the dual equations developed above.
Figures 4.17 and 4.18 indicate solutions for the primal and the dual in the Solved
Primal-Dual.Xls spreadsheet. Sheet 1 contains the Primal problem and Sheet 2

Figure 4.17. Solution to the primal problem.

Figure 4.18. Solution to the dual problem.

118

4 SOLVED LINEAR PROGRAM PROBLEMS

Sensitivity Analysis of Primal Problem

Adjustable Cells
Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable
Cell
Name
Value
Cost
Coefficient Increase Decrease

$A$2 XI
$B$2 x2
$C$2 x3

0
30
-57.8

232
0
0

82
100
200

1E+30
300
1E+30

232
1E+30
150

IConstraints

Cell
Name
$C$5 2x1+4x2 x3

Final
Value

Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable

Price
R.H. Side Increase Decrease
120
-75
120
1E+30
15.6

$C$6 3 ~ 1 + 4 ~ 2 + ~3
6 ~ 3-226.8
$C$7 2x1-4x3 ~3
231.2
$C$8 1Ox2+5x3 x3
11

0
0
40

13
200
11

1E+30
31.2
39

239.8
1E+30
1E+30

Figure 4.19. Sensitivity of the primal problem.

Sensitivity of Dual Formulation
Adjustable Cells
Cell
Name
$AS2 YI
$B$2 y2
$C$2 Y3
$D$2 v4

Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable

Value
Cost
Coefficient Increase Decrease
-75
0
120
1E+30
15.6
0
239.8
13
1E+30
239.8
0
-31.2
200
31.2
1E+30
40
0
11
39
1E+30

Constraints

Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable

Cell
Name
Value Price
R.H. Side Increase Decrease
0
82
1E+30
232
$C$4 2y1+3y2+2y3y3
-150
100
30
100
300
1E+30
$C$5 4yl+4y2+ 1oY4 y3
200
1E+30
150
-57.8
$C$6 6~2-4Y3+5Y4y3
200

Figure 4.20. Sensitivity of the dual problem.

contains its dual formulation. The optimized objective in both solutions is the same,
namely -8560.
It is now instructive to examine the sensitivity reports of solutions, which are
reproduced in Figures 4.19, and 4.20.

4.1 1 RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT

119

For the primary problem, optimal choice variables are 0, 30, and -57.8. The
shadow prices corresponding to the four constraints are -75, 0, 0, and 40. In the
dual problem, values of shadow prices and choice variables are reversed: Final
values of choice variables are -75,0, 0, and 40, and shadow prices corresponding
to three constraints are 0, 30, and -57.8. The reader is asked to compare the
reduced costs and the allowable increase and decrease for variables for the two
solutions. What other conclusions can be drawn? Further by relating the solutions
to the duality theorems in Section 3.10.2, the reader will be in a position to discern
relations between the dual and the primal problems and will be able to draw some
interesting conclusions.

4.11

RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT

Linear programs are ideally suited to optimize problems associated with water flow
management, maximization of electricity generation in hydroelectric systems, and
a variety of other issues related to water resources management. Some problems,
particularly those involving the time of travel for water from one dam to another,
can be very complicated. The following modified example modeled after an exercise
in Rao (1996) is an illustration of a simple problem in water management.

Problem Statement: It is proposed to build a reservoir to manage water in an

irrigation district. The object is to compute the optimum storage capacity, s, of this
reservoir, given the following data.
Expected inflow to reservoir: dry season (summer) 1.5 x lo6 acre-feet, wet
season 4.9 x IO6 acre-feet. Water released for irrigation from reservoir during dry
respectively. Further, it is required that the
and wet seasons are Xoutdry and xoutwet,
ratio of wet and dry season outflows is 30:70. Annualized cost of building and
maintaining reservoir is equal to 20s. The outflow of reservoir, before reaching
the irrigation district, is augmented by another stream. This stream adds 0.7 x lo6
acre-feet in wet season and 0.1 x lo6 acre-feet in dry season. The cost of operating
the outflow is 18 times the flow into the imgation district in the wet season, and
Reservoir
12 times the flow in the dry season.
Compute the optimum reservoir storage capability and the discharges from it problem
Xls
during the wet and dry seasons.

Solution: Choice variables of the problem are s, xoutwet, and xoutdry.

The assumption is that there is no annual carryover of water. This means that
the flow during a year is all utilized and not stored for subsequent years. Therefore,
for storage capacity s, we have

120

4 SOLVED LINEAR PROGRAM PROBLEMS

Figure 4.21. Solution to reservoir optimization problem.

Finally, from the ratio of outflows during wet and dry seasons, we obtain the
equality constraint as

The net flow into the imgation district during dry and wet seasons are xoutwet
0.7, and Xoutdry 0.1 respectively.
The objective is to minimize the cost given by

subject to constraints outlined above.

Results of computation are shown in Figure 4.21. As can be seen therein, the
optimum storage capacity of the reservoir is 2.579106 acre-feet, with wet and dry
season outflows of 1.92, and 4.479 million acre-feet.

4.12

SUMMARY

The above examples and their setup on Excel sheets have exposed the reader to
ways of conceiving and structuring physical problems as optimization problems.
Clearly, one can set up ones spreadsheets in a manner different from those in these
spreadsheets. Nonetheless, the mathematical formulation of problems arising from
a physical phenomena is what the reader is expected to see and formulate in order
to obtain a solution.

4.13 EXERCISE PROBLEMS

121

As in all disciplines, practice makes perfect. It is with further practice on

variants of the above problems, along with the analysis of sensitivity sheets, that
one becomes better in conceiving and solving problems.

4.13

EXERCISE PROBLEMS

1. The following problem illustrates an optimal mixing problem discussed in Section 4.1.
A generating station with several generators can obtain coal from three sources
with the following attributes:

Coal Type
A
B
C

% Sulfur

% Hg

MWNton

2.2
1.6
2.2

0.01

0.02
0.008

2
1.9
2.1

Cost, $/ton
42
45
40

The table indicates the percentage of pollutants, amount of energy (heat content)
per ton and the cost of coal.
(a) Find the optimal blending (procurement from) of supply from three sources

in order to ensure that:

i. The percent of Hg does not exceed 0.015% per ton of the blend.
ii. Sulfur content does not exceed 1.8% per ton of the blend.
iii. Sulfur content is equal to 1.8% per ton of the blend.
(b) Find the optimum mixing strategy if:
i. The Hg content cannot exceed 0.007% in the coal burned to produce
1 MWh.
ii. The sulfur content cannot exceed 0.09% in the coal burned to produce
1 MWh.
2. Consider the problem of inter-regional flows in Section 4.8. The system operator

is generally guided by nomograms for flows in certain branches and interfaces.

Let Figure 4.22 represent nomograms that require the flows to be within the
bounded region indicated. Introduce these constraints to the Excel Solver spreadsheet and obtain a solution to the problem. Compare this solution with that
obtained in Section 4.8. Examine the sensitivity sheet.

3. For the problem of Section 4.9.2, formulate its dual. Examine the sensitivity
sheet of the primal problem in Section 4.9.2 and compare it to the solution of
the dual problem. What is the meaning of the dual variables in this problem?
4. What is the increased cost of transporting the goods in the problem of Section 4.9.1 if

122

4 SOLVED LINEAR PROGRAM PROBLEMS

0
0

1\

150
300
Generation Area B

Import to Area D

Figure 4.22. Inter-regional flow constraints.

(a) The path from warehouse 1 to destination 6 is unavailable.

(b) Warehouse 3 became inoperative.
5. Consider the problem of procuring gas to generate electricity while minimizing
transportation cost in Section 4.9.2. If the regulations required the pollution not
to exceed 250, what are the new procured quantities? What is the incremental
cost of transportation? Consider the gas transporting entity that collects tariff.
How can it maximize its profits by varying the tariff given the above situation?
(This assumes that the entity is aware of all the above information.)